Posted by CmdrTaco on Friday September 21, @11:34AM
from the on-and-on-and-on dept.
A mild controvery occured yesterday in a story claiming Microsoft prohibits anti-ms speech if you use Frontpage. Here is a followup submitted by Reyacta from the original author: "Several readers have told me their EULA for FrontPage 2002 does not contain the no-disparaging-MS term, or that the term only applies to the FrontPage logo or to the Web components like the MSNBC news headline component. Just to be sure, this afternoon I went down to the store and bought a copy of FrontPage 2002 myself. In the box was the "Microsoft Frontpage 2002" license on a four-page folded sheet, titled "End- User License Agreement For Microsoft Software." Under Section #1, Grant of License, the second paragraph headed "Restrictions" states in part: "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred or pornography." (Not only a stunning example of legal overreaching, in my opinion, but very poor grammar as well.) It appears to me to clearly apply to use of the program as a whole and not just the logo or Web components. I suspect that there are different versions of the EULA of FrontPage 2002. Perhaps the license was updated for the most recent SKU, or versions obtained through different channels don't yet have it. I'm going to try to get Microsoft to clarify where this EULA does and doesn't appear, but I'm not sure they will be very anxious to provide me with that information. Reply to Ed Foster."
Hee - pretty soon... (Score:4, Insightful)
by MikeV () on Friday September 21, @11:53AM (#2330462)
(User #7307 Info | When you get the "Blue Screen of Death" the EULA will stipulate that you are forbiden to cuss out Microsoft while you hit Ctrl-Alt-Del.
When you get a GPF - you'll be forbiden to yell and holler about those MS morons while you watch hours of work disappear.
When you get a Outlook Express virus, you'll be forbiden to say it's an exploit of MS, but rather you'll have to concede it's a feature.
When your network crashes, you will be forbiden to call anyone and tell them that Microsoft crashed - you'll have to blame it on yourself or proclaim that it's a result of Microsoft ceasing function to end a critical memory leak for your benefit.
When the internet becomes YAMM - Yet Another Microsoft Monopoly - you'll be forbiden to get online and complain about Microsoft in any way - even to Microsoft's own support staff. You will only be able to praise Microsoft's infinite wisdom and grace.
When entertainment centers become YAMM, you'll be forbiden to play any music that uses Microsoft's name in vain.
When toilets become YAMM, you'll be forbiden to fart in any way that sounds like Microsoft or Bill Gates.
When churches become yet another YAMM, you'll be required to... well, we'll wait and see... [ Parent ]
what next? (Score:4, Flamebait)
by streetlawyer (johnsaulmontoya@MAJORPORTALENDINGINEXCLAMATIONPOIN) on Friday September 21, @12:30PM (#2330759)
(User #169828 Info) Yeah, and pretty soon Linux will release a licence that means any time you use Open Source software, all the software you write with it has to be Open Source too .... hang on, wait a minute ....
Or... (Score:1)
by shpoffo ([moc.liamtoh] [ta] [offophs]) on Friday September 21, @11:40AM (#2330338)
(User #114124 Info) why not just ignore that part of the EULA (or all of it =P) - i mean, what are they going to do, sue you? There's no way they could win *It's Unconstitutional*
stop paying attention to bad laws - they only distract you fromt he real problems going on
-shpoffo
Re:Or... (Score:3, Funny)
by ichimunki () on Friday September 21, @11:45AM (#2330397)
(User #194887 Info | It's not even a bad law, it's a faulty contract which may well fail to persist under judicial scrutiny. Frankly, though, if you are using Frontpage, you have bigger problems than this EULA. [ Parent ]
Re:Or... (Score:1)
by twoflower on Friday September 21, @12:05PM (#2330565)
(User #24166 Info)
why not just ignore that part of the EULA (or all of it =P) - i mean, what are they going to do, sue you? There's no way they could win *It's Unconstitutional*
Sorry, you're wrong. The constitution doesn't enter into it. You have no right to use the software without a license from them; you can reject the whole license (and therefore not use the software), but not just parts of it.
Twoflower
Re:Or... (Score:1)
by CiceroLove on Friday September 21, @01:27PM (#2330997)
(User #323600 Info | Your statement shows your complete misunderstanding of the Constitution. This a contract. Contracts can and regularly do require one or both parties to give up certain rights. Could they sue? Absolutely. Could they win? Absolutely. It would only be unconstitutional if they tried to sue you for making statements about them when you hadnt' ever signed an agreement not to do so. what the hell do you think NDAs are? An abridgement of free speech but one that you agree to. Stop spreading ignorance. Learn about the laws of your country before you start telling people they can't get sued.
Re:Or... (Score:1)
by he-sk () on Friday September 21, @12:30PM (#2330756)
(User #103163 Info |
However, all of your constitutional rights are "alienable", meaning that you can surrender them by contract, should you choose to do so. (Think of Non-Disclosure Agreements, for example).
Not so fast. Although you can waive certain rights in a contract (eg a NDA), not all of your rights can be surrendered by contract. See for example the 13th amendment.
EULA returns? (Score:1)
by MentlFlos () on Friday September 21, @11:41AM (#2330354)
(User #7345 Info | Anyone every try and return software because they didn't agree with the EULA? I can just see the arguement you would get in because its been opened and thus can only be exchanged for the same product.
What a shitty catch 22.
-paul
meatbarn.com
Re:EULA returns? (Score:2)
by mrdisco99 on Friday September 21, @12:21PM (#2330680)
(User #113602 Info) That's why the CD case inside the box has a sticker seal on it telling you to read the EULA first.
Re:EULA returns? (Score:1)
by jiheison on Friday September 21, @12:35PM (#2330789)
(User #468171 Info | You still have to open the box first
Re:EULA returns? (Score:1)
by Thunderknight on Thursday September 27, @02:19AM (#2357167)
(User #524811 Info) Delta Force 2 (the later "cheap" packaging) has such a seal on the CD-ROM..The manual? Only available in electronic form on the CD. Hmmm, I think my head is about to explode.
i wouldn't expect less (Score:1)
by jaxon6 () on Friday September 21, @11:42AM (#2330360)
(User #104115 Info | honestly, what do you expect from microsoft, the company that has made it's billions from being heavy-handed in every situation it could. we're all well aware of the netscape/ie debate, the desktop-oem debate, the 'unfair' pricing strategy where ms penalizes those who would dare defy it.
wait a second, i've yet to read the license agreement for win2k(who the hell does anyway?) or ie6. by posting using these, could i wind up on ms's blacklist? maybe a funny thought now, but if this type of policy is permitted, it won't be funny in the future, it'll probably be true. think about it, your freedom of speech gone, because microsoft has billions, and it ends up writing the laws. feels kinda f*cked up to me.
How enforcable is this? (Score:1)
by Alfthemack () on Friday September 21, @11:42AM (#2330367)
(User #17146 Info | Will they go after "adult" sites for damages or parody/satire sites?
What about the UCITA states? I believe at least one has passed a law that shrink-wrap licenses are enforceable.
Wow- what a move (Score:1)
by bryan1945 () on Friday September 21, @11:44AM (#2330386)
(User #301828 Info) If this means what it sounds like, doesn't that impinge on the 1st Amendment, and thereby become unconstitutional?
Microsoft- not only are we a monopoly, we're unconstitutional!
:)
Re:Wow- what a move (Score:1)
by cant_get_a_good_nick on Friday September 21, @12:09PM (#2330600)
(User #172131 Info)
If this means what it sounds like, doesn't that impinge on the 1st Amendment, and thereby become unconstitutional?
No. The Constitution restricts governments powers, not private companies. Though through money and lobbying, they're becoming one and the same.
Re:Wow- what a move (Score:1)
by UCRowerG on Friday September 21, @12:37PM (#2330805)
(User #523510 Info) No. I believe the EULA works the same as any contract. By opening the software package, you agree to be bound by the terms of the contract and voluntarily give up some of your rights.
Re:Wow- what a move (Score:1)
by bryan1945 () on Saturday September 22, @04:22PM (#2335338)
(User #301828 Info) After reading some more, I realized that private individuals/corporations can not directly violate the Constitution, since the Constitution mostly deals with the powers the gov has over individuals.
Ah, but hell, they still need to be punished for making my work desktop crash 3 times a day (on average). Can't I at least get to spank Bill Gates each time it crashes?
Hatred? (Score:2)
by mgkimsal2 () on Friday September 21, @11:45AM (#2330393)
(User #200677 Info | "You may not use the Software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state, federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred or pornography."
It seems these argeements tend to get more sweeping. I can understand them actually saying 'don't use our products to disparage us'. Whether or not that's legal or binding, it's understandable.
But "hatred"? That's such a broad term that I'm rather surprised a legal let it in. How do you define hatred? Or rather, where does the definition stop? Many people agree on certain actions being 'hateful' or based on hatred, but others wouldn't be so clear cut. Anti-abortion sites might be considered 'hate' sites by some people- can they not use front page? Hatred (and porn) is in the eye of the beholder oftentimes, so how can a person USING the software determine how OTHERS will classify their use of the product?
Re:Hatred? (Score:3, Funny)
by slashkitty (/dev/null) on Friday September 21, @12:14PM (#2330637)
(User #21637 Info) So I can't use FrontPage on i-hate-racism-and-porn.org?
Stupid lawsuits (Score:2)
by donutello on Friday September 21, @12:15PM (#2330645)
(User #88309 Info) It seems to me that that stuff is put there to cover their legal asses in case someone is offended by a website that was created using Frontpage.
I could totally see someone deciding that the website creator was not enough money and deciding to sue MS instead for creating the software that allows it.
Re:Hatred? (Score:1)
by ljagged (alex_garrett&coregis,com) on Friday September 21, @12:35PM (#2330790)
(User #107082 Info) Actually, I believe this has already been overturned in R.A.V. vs. St. Paul. The St. Paul statute read:
"Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, the ordinance is facially unconstitutional in that it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses.
The Supreme Court found that "the ordinance is facially unconstitutional in that it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses."
Re:Hatred? (Score:2)
by Tetsujin28 () on Friday September 21, @02:26PM (#2331335)
(User #156148 Info | Nope. That case is about an ordinance -- i.e., a kind of law promulgated by a government. The First Amendment says that Congress can't restrict free speech. The Fourteenth Amendment imposes similar limits on state and local governments. But nothing in the constitution says that private contracts, including license agreements, can't include restrictions on speech.
The FrontPage EULA provisions are lousy, but they're not in the Constitution's ballpark.
Re:Hatred? (Score:1)
by Prong on Friday September 21, @04:57PM (#2332270)
(User #190135 Info) Private contracts can and do place restrictions on speech (NDAs being a good example), but they imply that the party doing the restricting is providing consideration (something of value) to the restricted party in exchange, and there are limits on how far such a contract can go on legal and public policy grounds.
Aside from the obvious question of whether someone purchasing FrontPage at a retail output is receiving something of value, the MS EULA is subject to a different set of rules concerning its enforcablilty than, say, a home sale contract. I'd be amazed if any software maker's lawyers would actually want to test UCITA with a clause like that. Their level of arrogance would have to be horrendous, er wait. Never mind.
pr0n (Score:1)
by forgoil (forgoil @ his homepage...) on Friday September 21, @11:46AM (#2330411)
(User #104808 Info | Hmm, does that mean that Microsoft employees are encouraged to surf as much pr0n as possible, so that they can make sure the pages hasn't been done with frontpage? Call me mad, but it sounds like a pretty sweet arrangement ^_^
More seriously, does USA lack a govermental branch which deals with the rights of its citizens? Free speech? Almost all of us wants to get rid of all the terror and hate in the world, but it would be a terrible price to pay to turn west into the Taliban regime to achieve the goal...
I don't know what the fuss is about. I'd love to see the bastards try to enforce this.
Microsoft Lawyer: "Your honor, I call CmdrTaco to the stand."
Taco: (takes stand)
MS: "Did you, on 9/20/2001, purchase a copy of Frontpage 2000?"
Taco: "Yes."
MS: "Did you, on 9/21/2001, use Frontpage 2000 to create a web site?"
Taco: "Yes."
MS: "And did that web site contain pictures of Mr. William H. Gates III engaging in copulation with half a dozen goats while simultaneously using the Microsoft logo to spank cash out of customers, bent over with their palms on the floor, pants around their ankles and stupid smiles on their faces?"
Re:pr0n (Score:1)
by Jburkholder on Friday September 21, @12:49PM (#2330878)
(User #28127 Info | >rights of its citizens? Free speech?
Ok, but in what way is Microsoft _really_ limiting your "rights as a citizen"?
Even if this held up in court (worst case: Microsoft succeeds in making you take down your FrontPage-built website that says Bill Gates likes little boys.), your right to free speech isn't taken away, is it? You can still publish exactly the same speech using dreamweaver or golive or any other product you care to use. You just can't use FrontPage.
This seems rather silly though, as there seems little chance that Microsoft would actually have any chance of prevailing on the premise that you agreed to an EULA that restricts what you can put on the web. More likely, this is a CYA clause from Microsoft to protect them from getting dragged into a suit because someone used FrontPage to create some website that someone else decided to sue over.
not valid 'till challenged? (Score:1)
by Sebastopol on Friday September 21, @11:47AM (#2330419)
(User #189276 Info | IANAL.
I read a few interesting bullets in the original thread. One poster claimed that a flaw in the agreement voids the entire agreement. I also remember hearing that agreements like this can be voided if challenged in court.
So, all we need are a few daring souls to pen a few anti-MS websites using FP2002 and see if they take the bait. Assuming everyone gave their IRS rebate to the EFF, ;-), I suspect an interesting legal battle.
[ Parent ]
An ironic story as it follows closely the heels of (Score:1)
by Vicegrip (jrpetit@hot[ ].com ['mail' in gap]) on Friday September 21, @11:49AM (#2330438)
(User #82853 Info) the one on the DOJs legal wranglings. I suppose this will be largely unnoticed by the media in general...
One day in the future, free speech won't be illegal, it'll be an encroachment on the license agreement every citizen^h^h^h^h human resource must have with the Corporation of the U.S.A. (c) (r), patents pending, a subsidiary of Microsoft World Enterprises.
A little angry rhetoric I know.. but its how I feel right now.
Microsoft is bad for the economy (Score:2)
by Pinball Wizard () on Friday September 21, @11:51AM (#2330447)
(User #161942 Info | First, they try to shake down small to medium sized businesses. If they find a violation, their reaction is not to help the business come in to compliance, but to hurt them financially.
Now they won't sell Front Page to the porn industry? I bet 90% of the porn sites out there were created by it.
Microsoft continues to damage the economy by their actions. :(
Stupid, yes. Violates your rights, no. (Score:1)
by PieceMaker (aressjayjr at SPAMAWAY.hotmail.com) on Friday September 21, @11:51AM (#2330448)
(User #16268 Info) MS is clearly stupid to include this in their EULA. However, they are not violating your rights to free speech. Since the terms for this product are so odious, don't buy it. And make a stink agout the EULA so they get bad press over it. But you still have the ability to express yourself through web pages. That has not been lost. Your rights are still intact.
Re:Stupid, yes. Violates your rights, no. (Score:1)
by codefool (dafool@codefool(dot)org) on Friday September 21, @12:03PM (#2330542)
(User #189025 Info | I see your point, but it seems to me that a web-building tool is akin to a typewriter, and that to say that I can't use that typewriter to compose anything bad about the company that made the typewriter is direct violation of the first ammendment.